Reconciliation is the Only Way to Achieve Immigration Reform

In addition, the Senate reconciliation bill gets only 20 hours of debate and amendments are limited. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would worsen the deficit.

When the Republicans controlled the Presidency of George Bush and the United States Senate, the Republicans used reconciliation without regard to bipartisan politics. The Republicans bulldozed over the Democrats and used senate rules to enact three major tax cuts to steer their programs to approval.

Today, the power has shifted to the Democrats who now are considering the use of reconciliation as used by the Republicans when they were in power. Some Democrats believe the threat of a lower threshold for passage would give Republicans an incentive to work collaboratively, but the effect was to instantly intensify the partisan rancor that has been building all year.

"The American people expect when you take on an issue that affects them in a very comprehensive way as healthcare does . . . there is going to be an effort to have a fair plan produced they have confidence was reached in balanced way. That means you need bipartisanship and participation by all stakeholders," said Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire. "What you've essentially got here is negotiations where one side decides to pick up a gun and load it, and the other side has the gun pointed at its head."

Exactly what the Republicans did to the Democrats when the Republicans controlled the congress and the George Bush White House. To use an idiom, "What's good for the Republicans is good for the Democrats" meaning the parties should treat each other the same way and not be subjected to different standards.

But they don't and they didn't as everyone will remember when the Republicans were in power especially when the racist Republicans killed immigration reform in 2007 as reported below in this article.

On June 28, 2007, the United States Senate killed immigration reform voting 46 to 53. 14 short of the 60 "super majority" needed to overcome the filibuster used by the Republicans to kill immigration reform.

It was the filibuster requirement of the senate "super majority" led by contentious Republicans who killed immigration reform imposing a "super majority" of 60 votes for passage of immigration reform rather than by simple majority.

The defeat was a setback for lawmakers who worked for months to craft a bill they hoped would draw enough support from both parties to pass.

It did not because of a handful of racist Republicans representing anti-migrant conservative talk radio that filled U.S. airways with anti Hispanic verbiage using euphuisms such as "we support legal immigration but we are opposed to illegal immigration." These talk radio shows stated they represented the sentiments of most Americans.

Not true! National polls documented a majority of Americans supported comprehensive immigration reform.

A survey conducted May 30-June 3, 2007 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found overwhelming support — among two-thirds of the public — for giving undocumented immigrants citizenship if they have jobs, pass background checks and pay fines.

The right wing radio talk show hosts countered the national electorate with an effective strategy to minimize voter electorate strength — and it worked!

The Washington Times on May 18, 2007, reported "Senate passage of the bill is in doubt." The Times added, "Conservative Republicans argued the bill rewards illegal activity, while liberal Democrats said it is too draconian toward illegal aliens and too restrictive for future workers."

In a similar story, the Los Angeles Times reported "the attacks from both left and right that met the proposal suggested the latest push for change, although representing a potential breakthrough, could again end in a stalemate. At the very least, criticism showed the bill's supporters would need to do a lot of arm-twisting on both sides of the aisle."

Some Republicans were furious. NBC Nightly News showed Republican Congressman Ted Poe saying, "It's like somebody that trespasses on your land, you give them a fine but they stay on your land. That's a form of amnesty."

CBS Evening News interviewed Rep. James Sensenbrenner, another Republican, said, "I think the deal stinks. ... I'm mad as hell."

The Miami Herald quotes Republican Sen. Jim DeMint saying, "'I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty," while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes US Rep. Tom Price, "a Roswell Republican who joined the majority of the House GOP last year in pushing for an immigration bill focused almost exclusively on border security," also "issued a statement denouncing the new bill as 'amnesty.'" 

On June 5, 2007, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said, "This is one of the most contentious, complex, emotional issues of our time and no one is going to get 100% of what they want." Kyl spoke about Arizona Republican constituents who told him they trust him but don't like his bill. "The situation in the United States, and particularly in my state, is getting worse every day. You simply cannot afford to ignore the problem. You realize you're going to have to get in there, fight like heck to get the situation resolved."

Another euphuism for deport the undocumented. In Kyl's 2006 Arizona re-election campaign, Kyl is surrounded by Arizona's sheriffs  stating, "Arizona sheriffs oppose amnesty." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKo-16-fKI

On June 12, 2007, Republican senators urged President Bush to ask for emergency funds to ramp up enforcement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading proponent of the comprehensive immigration bill, said he was following the wishes of his constituents in defeating the immigration bill.

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, a leading Republican Hispanic American Cuban and known by Hispanic News readers as anti-Mexican was a champion proponent of the comprehensive immigration bill.

"This is far from over," Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) said, criticizing as "amnesty, amnesty and amnesty" the provision that provides illegal immigrant workers with a path to legal standing and citizenship.

The provisions on citizenship were by no means the only ones to come under fire.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, said "The guest worker program threatened to drive down U.S. wages. America's workers have enough downward pressure on their wages because of unfair trade deals and corporate outsourcing of millions of jobs every year. The last thing they needed is to have an inflow of millions of more immigrants competing for their jobs at substandard wages."

Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa objected to a provision he said would give the Homeland Security Department "unlimited, open-ended access to all Social Security data, including confidential tax return information."

The provision Grassley challenged was designed to create a workable employment verification system. His statement said the provision would take a "wrecking ball" to "the balance between taxpayer privacy and legitimate law enforcement."

Noting the bill would require the head of household to return to the country of origin to apply for the full family's permanent residency, Grassley said, "Only one lawbreaker has to return to apply for permanent residency for a family of lawbreakers."

Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) complained in a statement the compromise would end up costing taxpayers "trillions of dollars in entitlement spending" for immigrants moving on to the "already straining Social Security and Medicare system."

Republican and Democratic negotiators agreed to a trade-off, which they dubbed the "grand bargain," to give Democrats a way to give many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants legal status and to allow Republicans to shift the criteria for future immigration from family ties toward skills and education. If that trade-off had altered by any amendments, coalition members, who have taken to calling themselves the "grand bargainers," said the bill and their united support would fall apart.

That enraged some conservatives who had already been coming down hard on Republican members of the coalition, such as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), both of whom reportedly were booed at Republican gatherings over the recess.

Democrats Strike Back

With the immigration bill becoming more and more punitive with the Republican sponsorship led by Senator Kyl who was determined to deport any undocumented Hispanic for spitting on the sidewalk or jay-walking, Senator Menendez struck back on behalf of undocumented Hispanics.

Menendez's particular complaint was with the bill's limits on family-based immigration. The bill would have allowed citizens to bring only spouses and children younger than 18 to the United States. Currently, citizens also can bring parents and adult children.

The new restrictions were important to Republicans who were intent on ending what Kyl, the lead GOP negotiator, called "chain migration." Menendez brought a series of amendments that striked at that GOP achievement and, if it had passed, Kyl and other Republicans would have abandoned the bill.

One amendment would have changed the deadline for reducing the backlog of family members waiting to enter the United States. The bill would have immediately clear the backlog of 4 million family members who applied to enter the U.S. before May 2005. Menendez would have shifted the date to January 2007 — the bill's cutoff for illegal immigrants who could gain legal status — increasing the number of family applicants allowed in by more than 800,000.

"These are over 800,000 people who played by the rules, didn't violate any law, did the right thing," Menendez said. "But all of those who did the right thing, they lose their chance under this bill because of an arbitrary date plucked out of the air. Let's think about how unfair that is."

Another Menendez amendment would have increased the number of green cards, or legal permanent resident visas, available for parents of U.S. citizens and extend the duration of a new parent visitor visa, also a deal-killer for Republicans.

A third would have amended the point system Republicans had set up for awarding green cards, making it easier for applicants to earn points for family ties to the United States, along with points for education, skills and English ability.